Re^2: Check exist of anonymous subroutine before calling it within regexp substitute?

Minor tangent...

You swapped out the regexp delimiters from slashes to curly braces, but to me, this seems harder to read. I can only conclude that you think the curly braces improve readability. I'm guessing when you read the code, your mind's parser is thinking, "a block is a block so I expect curly braces" or something like that?

Comment on Re^2: Check exist of anonymous subroutine before calling it within regexp substitute?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Check exist of anonymous subroutine before calling it within regexp substitute? by kyle (Abbot) on Oct 30, 2009 at 02:53 UTC
I often write `s///` replacements (and `m//` matches) with braces, mostly because I don't have to escape slashes, and I don't even have to escape braces as long as they're nested. It's not unusual that I want to match a string with a slash in it (usually a file path), so I find using any "not slash" as delimiters useful. That said, I don't make a habit of changing delimiters in existing code. I probably would have stayed with slashes in my reply here if not for the `/e` flag. Since the replacement is being executed as a code block, I think it's good to make it look like a code block.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Check exist of anonymous subroutine before calling it within regexp substitute?
by kyle (Abbot) on Oct 30, 2009 at 02:53 UTC

I often write s/// replacements (and m// matches) with braces, mostly because I don't have to escape slashes, and I don't even have to escape braces as long as they're nested. It's not unusual that I want to match a string with a slash in it (usually a file path), so I find using any "not slash" as delimiters useful.

That said, I don't make a habit of changing delimiters in existing code. I probably would have stayed with slashes in my reply here if not for the /e flag. Since the replacement is being executed as a code block, I think it's good to make it look like a code block.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]